Indefatigable in their advocacy for World War III, the editors of the Washington Post commend Hillary Clinton for disagreeing with the Obama Administration on the Syria policy she helped to craft:
What of Mr. Obama’s claim that proposals like Ms. Clinton’s are “mumbo jumbo†and “half-baked� It’s worth considering the recent congressional testimony of retired Gen. David Petraeus, who like Ms. Clinton first advanced his ideas from inside the administration. The creation of enclaves in Syria “protected by coalition air power,†he said, was not only feasible but also essential to the political solution Mr. Obama says he is seeking for Syria.
“If there is to be any hope of a political settlement, a certain military and security context is required — and that context will not materialize on its own,†Mr. Petraeus said. “We and our partners need to facilitate it.†What’s needed is the creation of a formidable moderate Sunni force that can act as a counter both to the Islamic State and to the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad. That in return requires territory that is safe from aerial attacks.
Unicorns. More unicorns! We must have unicorns. The most moderate state in Syria that can reasonably be foreseen in Syria will be ruled by Bashar al-Assad and/or his Alawite regime. Why are we supporting the more extreme, anti-modern, and illiberal opposition?
Unless I’m mistaken “coalition” referred to consists of France and the U. S. with, maybe, a little tacit assistance from Turkey. France’s ability to continue operations over a protracted period is limited. IMO we should just be suitably grateful for the Russians’ help rather than working against them.
The Russians in the air and the Syria Army on the ground should be a formidable enough combination to rid Syria of jihadi extremists. And by “jihadi extremists” I mean all of them. I suspect the Russians are willing to let Allah do the sorting.
Spanish peasant to Spanish nobleman: What giants???
I am just a bit concerned that we are turning the Russians into supermen again. I am less certain that they can sustain an effective effort. If we can cut off funding from the gulf states and if we can stop the tacit (overt?) aid from Turkey, then maybe they can do it.
I think that gets to the heart of the matter. IMO we’ve got the wrong objective. Rather than focusing on removing Assad we should devote more attention to what sort of state we’d like Syria to become and how that might happen.
As I see it there are no prospects whatever that siding with radical Islamists will result in a Syria that’s more palatable to us than Assad’s Syria has been. In other words the Alawite regime is the only path that leads up.